coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Sebastopol.
5.  On 23 July 1998 she lodged a claim with the Nakhimovskyy Court against her former employer for the recovery of salary arrears.
6.  By a judgment of 21 January 1999, the court allowed the claim and awarded the applicant certain amounts in salary arrears.
7.  On 3 June 1999 the applicant requested the court to review the above judgment in the light of the newly discovered circumstances. On 2 July 1999 the court allowed the request and reopened the proceedings.
8.  By a judgment of 5 October 1999, the court rejected the applicant’s claim as lodged out of time. On 2 November 1999 the Sebastopol Court upheld that judgment.
9.  On 23 June 2000, following a protest of the President of the Sebastopol Court, the Presidium of the same court quashed the decisions of 5 October and 2 November 1999 and remitted the case for fresh consideration.
10.  By a judgment of 18 September 2003, the Nakhimovskyy Court rejected the applicant’s claim for the same reasons as in its judgment of 5 October 1999.
11.  On 25 November 2003 the Sebastopol Court of Appeal upheld the above judgment. The applicant stated that she had not been present at the hearing on appeal because she had not been informed of it.
12.  On 15 March 2006 a panel of three judges of the Supreme Court, sitting in camera, rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation against the lower courts’ decisions as unsubstantiated.
13.  In the course of the proceedings fourteen hearings were adjourned due to the absence of the judge dealing with the case, the defendant’s failure to appear, the latter’s requests to adjourn the hearings, the absence of an expert and the need to collect further evidence. A forensic examination was ordered in the proceedings and lasted for about eleven months (June 2001 - May 2002).
4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Zaporizhzhya.
5.  In October 1995 the applicant lodged a claim with the Ordzhonikidzevskyy Court against the local prosecutor’s office and the police department for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. In the course of the proceedings he also lodged a similar claim against the State Treasury.
6.  On 22 October 1998 the court delivered a judgment in the applicant’s case. On 21 January 1999 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court quashed it and remitted the case for fresh consideration. On 19 February 1999, following the protest of the President of the Regional Court, the Presidium of the same court quashed the ruling of 21 January 1999.
7.  On 22 April 1999 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 22 October 1998 and remitted the case for fresh consideration by the first instance court.
8.  On 9 February 2004 the Ordzhonikidzevskyy Court allowed in part the applicant’s claims and awarded him certain amounts of compensation.
9.  On 23 November 2004 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration. On 12 December 2007 the Supreme Court quashed the ruling of 23 November 2004 and remitted the case to the Court of Appeal for fresh consideration.
10.  On 4 March 2008 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 9 February 2004 and rejected the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated.
11.  On 21 May 2008 the Supreme Court refused to grant leave for the applicant’s appeal in cassation.
12.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the applicant amended his claim and appeals on ten occasions. The courts adjourned twelve hearings following the applicant’s requests or due to his failure to appear, which resulted in several delays of the overall duration of one and a half years. Some thirteen hearings were also adjourned due to the respondents’ failure to appear, absence or sickness of a judge or because the courts needed to collect additional evidence.
13.  In October 1990 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the domestic courts against the local police department, seeking compensation for damages. These proceedings ended on 19 October 1994 with the court decision partly granting the applicant’s action.
14.  In 1989-1999 the applicant unsuccessfully sought institution of criminal proceedings against certain police officers, who had allegedly taken some of his personal belongings and inflicted light bodily injuries on him.
5.  The applicant is a company limited by shares with its seat in Budapest.
6.  By way of assignments for consideration, done in October 2001 and July 2002, the applicant acquired – through intermediaries – the debts of V. Rt and M. Rt from the Tax Authority. The debts consisted mostly of unpaid payroll taxes and social security contributions and originated in the period before 1998.
7.  Since the debtors had become insolvent, the applicant brought an action against the State-owned Hungarian Privatisation and State Holding Company (ÁPV Rt) before the Budapest Regional Court in order to recover the assigned claims. Relying on section 328 of the (Old) Companies Act 1988, it argued that ÁPV Rt – the majority owner of the two debtor companies – bore vicarious liability for the outstanding debts.
8.  On 25 September 2003 the Regional Court partly found for the applicant. The court awarded some 47.3 million Hungarian forints (HUF) to the applicant, which corresponded to the debts of V. Rt other than the payroll taxes and social security contributions. It dismissed the action in respect of the latter items. The applicant was obliged to pay HUF 9.6 million to the respondent in legal fees.
9.  The applicant appealed. It claimed 22,482,500 Hungarian forints (HUF) plus accrued interest on account of the remaining debts of V. Rt and HUF 177,975,985 plus accrued interest on account of those of M. Rt.
10.  The Budapest Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance decision on 9 July 2004. The applicant was obliged to pay HUF 3 million as procedural fees.
11.  The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court in respect of the social security contributions owed by M. Rt. It submitted that their amount altogether was approximately HUF 160 million – a sum including the principal of HUF 84,515,225 – but susceptible to further taking of evidence in resumed proceedings.
12.  On 5 April 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's decision. It was satisfied that ÁPV Rt indeed bore vicarious liability in the circumstances. Relying on Uniformity Decision no. 2/2004.PJE, it held however that – pursuant to sections 3(3) and 25(2) of the (Old) Taxation Order Act 1990 – for the impugned social security contributions to be enforceable by the applicant, a decision should have been issued by the Tax Authority establishing the vicarious liability. For want of such a decision, the contributions could not be enforced by the applicant, since the assignment had not conferred any public law powers on it. The applicant was obliged to pay once more HUF 3 million as procedural fee.
9.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in İslahiye.
10.  She was the partner of Ömer Koç (Ö.K.), a farmer whom she married in a religious ceremony in 1976 and with whom she had six children. Ö.K. died on 10 September 2002. The applicant stated that on that date, while she and her partner had been making preparations for an official marriage ceremony, Ö.K. had died following an illness.
11.  On 11 September 2003 the applicant brought proceedings before the İslahiye District Court on her own behalf and on behalf of her daughter Emine seeking rectification of the entry concerning her in the civil status register. She requested that her religious marriage to Ö.K. be recognised and that her daughter be entered in the register as the deceased's daughter.
12.  In a judgment of 26 September 2003 the District Court refused the applicant's request concerning her religious marriage but granted the request for Emine to be entered in the register as Ö.K.'s daughter. As no appeal was lodged, the judgment became final.
13.  On an unspecified date the applicant requested the Hatay retirement pension fund (“Bağ‑Kur”) to award her and her daughter Emine a survivor's pension and health insurance cover on the basis of her late partner's entitlement. The fund refused the request.
14.  On 20 February 2003 the applicant applied to the İslahiye Labour Court to have that decision set aside. On 20 May 2003 the latter decided that it had no jurisdiction ratione loci and that the case should be heard by the Hatay Labour Court.
15.  In a judgment of 21 January 2004 the Hatay Labour Court, in a ruling based on the judgment of the İslahiye District Court, found that the applicant's marriage to Ö.K. had not been validated. Accordingly, since the marriage was not legally recognised, the applicant could not be subrogated to the deceased's rights. However, the court set aside the retirement fund's decision in so far as it related to Emine and granted her the right to claim a pension and health insurance cover on the basis of her deceased father's entitlement.
16.  On 10 February 2004 the applicant appealed on points of law to the Court of Cassation. She argued that the extract from the civil status register stated that she was the wife of Ö.K., who was registered in the village of Kerküt. She explained that in 1976 she had married Ö.K. in accordance with custom and practice. The couple had had six children. The first five children had been entered in the civil status register in 1985 under their father's name, while the last child, Emine, born in 1990, had been entered under her mother's name in 2002. The applicant asserted that, unlike her six children, she had been unable to claim a pension or health insurance cover based on her deceased partner's entitlement.
17.  In a judgment of 3 June 2004, served on the applicant on 28 June 2004, the Court of Cassation upheld the impugned judgment.
5.  The applicants were born in 1971, 1962, 1966 and 1965 respectively. The second applicant is currently detained in Plovdiv Prison. The third applicant lives in Nicosia, Cyprus. The remaining applicants live in the village of Stryama in Bulgaria.
6.  On 6 and 12 May 1992 the police in Rakovski opened two investigations into several thefts of sheep and goats. Between 13 and 19 May 1992 the applicants submitted written explanations admitting to having committed the thefts.
7.  The proceedings remained dormant until January 2002 when a police investigator questioned several witnesses and commissioned two expert reports concerning the value of the stolen animals. Between 21 and 24 January 2002 the investigator brought charges against the four applicants.
8.  On 15 March 2002 the first and third applicants were questioned before a judge.
9.  In November 2003 the investigation was concluded and on 8 December 2003 the applicants were indicted for theft. On 1 June 2004 they entered into a plea agreement with the prosecution, accepting short suspended sentences. At a hearing held on the same day the Plovdiv District Court affirmed the agreement and discontinued the proceedings. Its decision was final.
5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and is currently detained in the Łódź Detention Centre.
6.  On 6 October 2005 the applicant was arrested by the police.
7.  On 7 October 2005 the Łódź District Court decided to detain the applicant on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed various offences related to extortions, attempted murders, kidnappings and robberies while acting in an organised criminal gang.
8.  The applicant's pre-trial detention was extended on 20 December 2005 and on 21 March, 20 June, 1 August, 20 September and 20 December 2006. The courts relied on the severity of the possible sentence, which created a risk of the applicant's going into hiding or interfering with the proper course of the proceedings, and the necessity of gathering evidence in this particularly complex case. The court relied heavily on the complexity of the proceedings which involved many co‑accused who had allegedly participated in an organised, armed gang.
9.  On 25 April and 27 June 2007 the Łódź Court of Appeal further extended the pre-trial detention of the applicant and other co-accused. In the meantime additional charges were brought against the applicant.
10.  On 6 September 2007 the applicant and 20 other co‑accused were indicted before the Łódź Regional Court.
11.  Subsequently, the Łódź Regional Court began the trial. The first hearing was held on 8 April 2008. The applicant's detention was subsequently extended on 11 and 19 September 2007, 11 June and on 17 December 2008 and 23 May 2008.
12.  The applicant's pre-trial detention was extended by the Łódź Court of Appeal on 17 December 2008. The court referred to the complexity of the case and stressed that only the application of isolative measure could prevent the applicant from interfering with the course of the proceedings.
13.  On 22 April, 23 September and 22 December 2009 the applicant's detention was again extended. The court referred to the reasons given previously.
14.  The applicant unsuccessfully complained against some of the decisions extending his pre-trial detention.
15.  Between 4 January 2008 and 23 September 2009 the applicant was serving a prison sentence imposed in another set of criminal proceedings against him.
16.  The applicant did not complain about the unreasonable length of the proceedings under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki – “the 2004 Act”).
17.  The applicant remains in detention and the proceedings are pending before the first-instance court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Bratislava.
5.  On 3 September 1996 the applicant filed an action with the Bratislava II District Court. He claimed reimbursement of a purchase price.
6.  On 4 May 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the applicant's right to a hearing without unjustified delay had been violated, awarded him the equivalent of 1,782 euros (EUR) at that time as just satisfaction, ordered the court concerned to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant's legal costs.
7.  On 30 May 2006 the district court delivered a judgment.
8.  On 31 October 2007 the Bratislava Regional Court, on the defendant's appeal, quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for further examination to the district court.
9.  On 22 September 2009 the district court delivered a judgment. Following the defendant's appeal, the proceedings are pending before the Regional Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in the city of Kyiv, Ukraine.
5.  On 23 August 1996 the applicant instituted proceedings against his former employer, the State Institute for Electric Welding, in the Leningradsky District Court of Kyiv (“the District Court”) challenging his dismissal and claiming payment of salary arrears and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
6.  In the period from August 1996 to 25 February 1998 the applicant's case was considered by the courts at two levels of jurisdiction.
7.  The last hearing in 1998 was held by the District Court on 25 February 1998. Then the case file was lost. On 31 May 2000 the District Court resumed the proceedings.
8.  On 9 June 2000 the District Court ordered reconstruction of the case file.
9.  On 26 July 2001 the District Court partly allowed the applicant's claims.
10.  On 14 March 2002 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh consideration.
11.  On 17 October 2002 the District Court partly allowed the applicant's claims.
12.  On 23 January 2003 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 17 October 2002 and found against the applicant.
13.  On 15 April 2003 the Supreme Court gave a final decision in the applicant's case by which it dismissed his appeal in cassation.
14.  The applicant tried to review his case under extraordinary procedure, but his efforts were to no avail.
15.  In March 2005 the applicant instituted proceedings against the President of the State Institute for Electric Welding in the Svyatoshin District Court of Kyiv challenging the orders issued by his former employer under which he had been dismissed. On 31 March 2005 the court declined to consider his claims on the ground that the same claim had already been considered by the domestic courts and there had been a final decision in that respect.
16.  On 12 May 2005 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld this ruling.
17.  According to the applicant's submissions, in June 2005 he lodged an appeal in cassation against the rulings of 31 March 2005 and 12 May 2005 with the Supreme Court. The applicant did not inform this Court about the outcome of the cassation proceedings.
4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and detained in Kandıra prison.
5.  On 3 March 1997 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation.
6.  On 14 March 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor. The medical report drawn up by the doctor indicated that there was hyperaemia on the applicant's thighs.
7.  On the same day the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor, where he stated that he had been stripped and hosed with water under police custody.
8.  On the same day the judge at the İstanbul State Security Court ordered his pre-trial detention. Before the judge the applicant stated that his statement in police custody had been taken under torture, but he did not give any details.
9.  On 28 April 1997 the public prosecutor at the İstanbul State Security Court issued an indictment charging the applicant with attempting to undermine the constitutional order under Article 146 of the former Criminal Code.
10.  On 7 July 1997 the applicant stated before the İstanbul State Security Court that his statement in police custody had been taken under torture, without giving any details.
11.  On 26 April 2002 the İstanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 146 of the former Criminal Code.
12.  On 12 May 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 26 April 2002.
13.  By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. The case against the applicant was subsequently resumed before the İstanbul Assize Court.
14.  On 25 December 2008 and 9 April 2009 the applicant objected to his continued detention and requested his release. The 11th Chamber of the İstanbul Assize Court dismissed the applicant's objections on 14 January and 15 April 2009 respectively, having regard to the nature of the offence in question and to the state of the evidence. No hearing was held.
15.  On 2 April 2009 the İstanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant.
16.  According to information in the case file, the case is pending before the Court of Cassation.
17.  Throughout the proceedings, the first instance courts examined the applicant's continued detention at the end of each hearing, either on their own motion or upon the applicant's requests. Each time the courts ordered the applicant's continued detention having regard to the state of the evidence, the nature of the offence, the strong suspicion of his having committed the offence in issue, the danger of flight, the overall period of the pre-trial detention, and the persistence of the grounds for the continued detention.
7.  The first applicant, Mr Greens, was serving a determinate sentence of imprisonment at HM Prison Peterhead at the time his application was lodged with the Court. He was eligible for release on parole from 29 May 2010. It is not known whether he has been released on parole. The second applicant, M.T., is currently serving a determinate sentence of imprisonment at HM Prison Peterhead. According to information provided by the Government, he is scheduled to be released in November 2010.
8.  On 23 June 2008 the applicants posted voter registration forms to the Electoral Registration Officer (“ERO”) for Grampian. They sought registration on the electoral register at their address in HM Prison Peterhead.
9.  On 3 July 2008, the ERO replied referring to previous applications for registration which were refused in 2007 under sections 3 and 4 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, as amended, (see paragraph 19 and 21 below) on the basis of the applicants' status as convicted persons currently detained. The ERO requested clarification of whether there had been a change in circumstances in the applicants' cases.
10.  On 5 August 2008 the applicants wrote to the ERO arguing that following the Court's decision in Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, ECHR 2005‑IX, and the declaration of incompatibility made by the Registration Appeal Court in the case of Smith v. Scott (see paragraphs 27-30 below), the ERO was obliged to add their names to the electoral register.
11.  On 12 August 2008, the ERO refused the applicants' registration applications on the basis of their status as convicted persons detained in a penal institution.
12.  By letter of 14 August 2008 the applicants informed the ERO of their wish to appeal to the Sheriff Court against the refusal.
13.  On 12 September 2008 the Sheriff considered the applicants' appeals together with appeals in a number of other similar cases and ordered written representations to be lodged.
14.  On 25 September 2008 the applicants wrote to the court summarising their position. They provided further submissions on 1 October 2008. The applicants alleged that legal aid was not available for the proceedings and they therefore represented themselves.
15.  On 10 November 2008 the applicants' appeals were refused.
16.  On 20 November 2008 another serving prisoner whose appeal was also refused on 10 November 2008, Mr Beggs, applied to Aberdeen Sheriff Court to request that it state a case for the opinion of the Registration Appeal Court (see paragraph 22 below). On 30 December 2008, the Sheriff refused to state a case. Mr Beggs subsequently applied to the Court of Session for an order requiring the Sheriff to state a case, on the ground that the Sheriff had erred in law in refusing to do so. The most recent information available to the Court was that those proceedings were pending. It is not clear whether that remains the case.
17.  On 4 June 2009, elections to the European Parliament took place. The applicants were ineligible to vote.
18.  On 6 May 2010 a general election took place in the United Kingdom. The applicants were ineligible to vote.
4.  The applicants were born in 1947, 1986 and 1986 respectively and live in Bratislava.
5.  On 7 April 1995 the applicants claimed compensation for damage to their health (infection with Hepatitis C).
6.  On 6 November 2007 the Bratislava I District Court dismissed their action.
7.  On 29 May 2009 the Bratislava Regional Court, upon the applicants' appeal, quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case file for further examination to the district court.
8.  On 18 January 2010 the applicants complained to the President of the district court about undue delays. On 2 February 2010 the President of the court concerned acknowledged that there had been delays in the proceedings.
9.  On 4 March, 18 May and 1 July 2010 the district court held hearings.
10.  The proceedings are pending.
11.  On 8 June 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava I District Court had violated the applicants' right to a hearing without unjustified delay. The Constitutional Court awarded 30,000 Slovakian Korunas (SKK) to each applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage, ordered the district court to avoid further delays and to reimburse the applicants' legal costs.
12.  On 15 March 2007 the Constitutional Court found that, in the period after its previous ruling, the Bratislava I District Court had violated the applicants' right to a hearing without unjustified delay. The Constitutional Court awarded SKK 50,000 to each applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage, ordered the district court to avoid further delays and to reimburse the applicants' legal costs.